Wednesday, September 16, 2009

This Post is Dedicated to the Socialists of All Parties, Newspapers, and Cable Stations

Jimmy Carter is right. I refuse to accept a black president... who isn't Thomas Sowell. Actually, I refuse to accept a black socialist. Or white socialist. Or Jewish socialist. Or Asian socialist. But I'd vote for Thomas Sowell if he were a transgendered Guatemalan poetess who thought that shaving his legs was a form of oppression.

Speaking of Obama, Road to Serfdom is actually dedicated to him and to his parents, not to mention the group that nurturted his political sensibilities, ACORN. (Have you noticed that the treasonous don't fall far from the ACORN?)

Yes, Hayek dedicated the book -- without irony or malice -- "to the socialists of all parties." He did so because he knew that the vast majority of socialists were not evil, just misguided (despite the respect not being mutual; Hayek was treated with contempt by his Anointed contemporaries).

Again, back then there was an excuse for being a socialist, just as we can excuse someone for having been a slaveholder back when the practice was universal, or racist when no one knew any better. But now there is no excuse. So this post is dedicated with irony and malice to the socialists of all parties, newspapers, and cable stations.

As I mentioned yesterday, the kooks of the mainstream left will not engage our arguments. Instead, their first and last resort is name-calling of the most vile sort. Again, the proof that they do not take racism seriously is that they throw out the charge so lightly and irresponsibly. If I am a racist, then there's nothing wrong with being one.

But things were no different in the 1940s, since one of the appeals of leftism is that it renders one virtuous in one's own eyes, so that people who don't share your ideals are worthy of the most intolerant scorn and ridicule. As Hayek writes in the preface, the very people who could most benefit from the book "rejected it out of hand as a malicious and disingenuous attack on their finest ideals. They appear never to have paused to examine its argument."

This column from the blessedly soon-to be-extinct LA Times is typical: "the right-wing anti-Obama movement in the U.S. these days is overpopulated with nuts, fundamentalists and paranoids who won't be easily stopped by a few congressional reprimands." You don't say! (Interestingly, just as the previous dinosaurs, the MSM is becoming extinct due to a comet -- the blazing comet of the internet and of citizen journalism.)

In fact, this idiotorial claims that you and I don't even actually believe what we believe. You know, the old Marxist idea of "false consciousness." Rather, we're just being manipulated by a conspiratorial political action committee called Our Country Deserves Better. Never heard of them? They're the ones who have convinced us of the "fundamentalist" and "unintelligible" idea that the Constitution actually means what it says. How primitive! Everyone knows that the Constitution means what the left wishes it to mean.

Have you ever wondered why two economists can believe things that are diametrically opposed to one another? This leads to a kind of cynicism and confusion that paves the way for the left. In other words, if both Thomas Sowell and Paul Krugman are "economists," then the word "economist" has no real meaning, so a politician can go ahead and do what he wants, knowing that some gliberal quackademic has his back. It is analogous to calling both an astronomer and astrologer "scientists."

Then again, Van Morrison and Kanye West are both "musicians." That being the case, one is unable to evaluate music in the absence of values. The same holds true of economics. The reason why a Hayek and Krugman or Robert Reich differ so sharply is because they start with an entirely different set of values, which are "non-negotiable." For a variety of reasons we will get into, Hayek starts with the individual in general and with liberty in particular (which one might say is the field of the individual's freely chosen action), while the socialist -- by whatever name -- begins with the collective.

Many people wonder why conservatism embodies the sometimes uneasy coalition of libertarians and serious religious seekers, and this is why, for both, in their own way, regard the individual as sacred, inviolable, and absolute (i.e., the image of the Absolute). "We are endowed by our Creator," etc.

In contrast, the fascist/socialist always begins with the we. For example, in Nazi Germany, the state was simply the reflection of the fundamental reality of the nation, or "volk." The individual is meaningless in the absence of his devotion and subordination to this higher body. For this reason, the Nazis embarked on an all-out assault on the liberal values of the Anglo-Saxon world (including the Christian metaphysics underlying them).

The same principle applies to our contemporary socialists, including Obama. "Yes we can." Higher taxes are our patriotic duty. I want to take your income and "spread it around." I don't want to hear any talking from you. I want you to get out of the way, you bunch of selfish racists. If you challenge these assumptions, you trigger the same kind of visceral reaction you would if you had attacked a religious icon, the reason being that socialism is a religion. Take away its ideals, and these people have nothing to believe in.

So although Road to Serfdom is an economics book, there's not a single equation in it (except for the equation of socialism and serfdom). Rather, it begins and ends in ultimate values -- although he then proceeds to demonstrate how the nurturing of these values leads to human progress, development, and increased wealth. For the secret power of the free market is that it unleashes the almost infinite potential of the creative and motivated individual -- a potential that was quashed for most of human history, and is vitiated under any socialist system.

Again, rather than engage these ideas, the left always attacks motivations -- for example, that classical liberalism is simply a self-serving doctrine of The Rich. But I am not rich, nor was Hayek, nor are most of the tea partiers. (And I assume you're not, but if you are, how would you like to send a generous Love Offering my way?) The left has it precisely backward. If I were self-serving, I would be a leftist in order to get more free stuff from the government, and maybe even a lifetime commitment to a major looniversity bin. I would work toward that glorious day when 51% of the population pays no taxes and lives off the 49% who do -- the revolt of the takers over the makers.

As Hayek explains, "I am as certain as anyone can be that the beliefs set out in [the book] are not determined by my personal interests. I can discover no reason why the kind of society which seems to me desirable should offer greater advantages to me than to the great majority of the people in my country."

Same with me. I am sure that Omamacare will include mandated mental health coverage. Therefore, it is like free money for me. My pool of potential victims will increase exponentially. But I am adamantly opposed to the idea that the government should pay for people to talk about their problems to some unhinged psychologist.

Hayek goes on to say that "I have every reason for not writing or publishing this book. It is certain to offend many people with whom I wish to live on friendly terms." Again, I couldn't agree more. I too have in-laws, co-workers, and neighbors.

Believe it or not, I have no desire to be hated by people, which is precisely why I try to limit my exposure. I really don't want to put a big target on myself. Those folks are spooky, in case you haven't noticed. And since the main purpose of this blog is spiritual, I can't be at my best in that arena if I am having to deal with the psychotic crosscurrents of the left. I prefer to leave that to others who thrive on that sort of thing.

55 Comments:

Blogger Van said...

"Actually, I refuse to accept a black socialist. Or white socialist. Or Jewish socialist. Or Asian socialist. But I'd vote for Thomas Sowell if he were a transgendered Guatemalan poetess who thought that shaving his legs was a form of oppression."

ISS! Sign me up as campaign co-chair.

9/16/2009 08:22:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"Again, rather than engage these ideas, the left always attacks motivations -- for example, that classical liberalism is simply a self-serving doctrine of The Rich. But I am not rich, nor was Hayek, nor are most of the tea partiers."

The closest thing I ever received to an argument on the Levin 'Liberty vs Tyranny' threads, was "If you think taking the whole month of July off is bad, then your values are pretty damn screwy." and "I wish you happiness in your ordeal and when it comes time for you to retire, deny the many socialist services we are going to offer you.", which reminded me of nothings so much as some kid egging on another "Come on Johnny, don't be a sap, they won't find out, swipe one too... don't even think of ratting us out to get a reward!"

The concept of Right and wrong as value (or even as a motivation for that matter) is foreign to them; the notion of doing something because it is the right thing to do, even if it doesn't seem to give any direct benefit to you... in their mind is just out and out loony - or a fake out.

In their mind, the motivation IS the justification, and so your motivation must be to double cross them and get the goods yourself.

9/16/2009 09:25:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

But I am not rich, nor was Hayek, nor are most of the tea partiers.

But there sure are a lot of them. (Click on the picture)

9/16/2009 09:38:00 AM  
Anonymous slackosopher said...

I have to admit of all the things I've read suggested here over the past few years, none have made the deepest impact on my political vies than reading Sowell's "Basic Economics".

To be honest I'm still slowly working my way through, digesting it a little at a time. After a lifetime of junk food, my intellectual "digestion" can't take such nourishment all at once.

I can't tell you how many times I've had "ohhh...duh!?!?" moments while reading this frighteningly clear and straightforward book. In that sense I am riveted by the what Hayek has to say.

Of course living here in Leftism Central there aren't too many people I can discuss it with.

For example, the look of betrayal in the eyes of my LIFETIME best friend (and fairly moderate lefty) when I mentioned I was reading "A Conservative History of the Left" was quite astonishing to me. I just said I was *reading* it, I made no mention of whether I agreed with it. The conversation never made it that far.

It is no wonder to me that the current "dialogue" about Health Care, Obama etc is so utterly futile and debased. More is at stake than the Truth...there are delusions to protect!!!

Anyway, thank you.

9/16/2009 10:13:00 AM  
Blogger Russell said...

"We are the ones we have been waiting for."

If that isn't 'simply the reflection of the fundamental reality of the nation, or "volk."' I don't know what is.

And there, the individual is powerless, waiting, for the collective to arrive.

"The individual is meaningless in the absence of his devotion and subordination to this higher body."

And that's how the "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" crowd becomes the "Shut up, we won" crowd.

Heck, Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia! Or was it Eastasia?

I'm sure Minitrue will send out a message soon to clarify.

9/16/2009 10:14:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"... since one of the appeals of leftism is that it renders one virtuous in one's own eyes, so that people who don't share your ideals are worthy of the most intolerant scorn and ridicule."

And the core appeal, being that what you believe IS right, because YOU believe it. You are able to reform the world in your lazy intellectual image.

To be a leftist, is to either overlook or flat out reject reality - it is to revere a lie and to work very hard to not become aware of it.

That was one of the major obstacles leftism had in making headway into America, we were a moral people, not interested in getting something for nothing. In true alinsky/gramsci fashion, they found a way around our Virtue by using our decency and good intentions against us, via the roots of Political Correctness – dressing up a lie in our faux virtuous clothing.

Sold as a 'kinder, gentler' way of phrasing things, PC puts into words a ‘nicer’, ‘more respectable’ way of saying something. Unfortunately the true meaning of that is hiding the truth and denying what is real and true - and making what is real and true, an embarrassment, unworthy of respect. Calling someone’s position a "Sanitation Engineer", is to degrade and deny any worth or possible respect for being a Janitor.

You’ll have a hard time naming a leftist (Dem or Rep) bill or policy that doesn't use the fraud of some politically correct terminology, to hide evil behind a sugary lure of good intentions. "Affirmative Action" hides pure racism. "Minimum Wage" hides forcing inexperienced, younger or 'lesser classes and races' out of the job market, etc, etc, etc. “Campaign Finance reform” denies the most basic right to the freedom of political speech. “Welfare” consists of robbing Peter to rob Paul of any chance of faring well, by stealing and destroying wealth.

Political Correctness is the sacrament of Socialists of All Parties, Newspapers, and Cable Stations – the sacrificial disemboweling of the Truth in order to promote the lie. Political Correctness is not only A lie, but THE lie (“…the woman whom you gave me, she gave me the fruit and I ate it…”), and until we expunge it from our vocabulary, we will dig our graves with our niceties.

9/16/2009 10:19:00 AM  
Blogger Warren said...

>> one of the appeals of leftism is that it renders one virtuous in one's own eyes

ONE of the appeals of leftism? That's the whole damned thing....

9/16/2009 10:20:00 AM  
Blogger NoMo said...

“…rather than engage these ideas, the left always attacks motivations.” Form is so effective at deflecting attention from substance. Like focusing on Joe’s “extreme breach of decorum” instead of whether there might have been any truth at all to him saying “you lie”. Seriously, which is more important? Its like the conversation I recently had with a lefty-ish pal. He’s a very smart, accomplished and ambitious guy, but he had to boil down his support for more government and regulation to one word: “greed”. Not his own, of course.

9/16/2009 10:28:00 AM  
Blogger NoMo said...

...talk about legislating morality.

9/16/2009 10:30:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Speaking of racism, and in light of Van's comment re. PC, here's a fine example of the blatant bigotry of low expectations:

Frank James on NPR's blog The Two-Way had a different take. He asked readers to remember that "ACORN's workers are coming from the same low-income neighborhoods the organization serves," and that "flaws conservatives are pointing out about ACORN are not so much problems associated with that organization per se but more about the problems of being poor and minority in urban America.

Bullshit. If such behavior is associated with being "poor and minority in urban America," that is because every vice - the implication here being crime, prostitution, thuggery, fraud and human trafficking - has been nurtured and allowed to fester in poor urban communities because these celebrated victims of rich white people are not to be held responsible for their own behavior. By this logic, they are lesser human beings, for whom allowances and indulgences must be made.

And in response to NoMo's comment, my thought on Joe is that he was truly speaking truth to power. So of course he had to apologize; the powers that be must not be challenged. I haven't been paying much attention to his later remarks, but if I've been reading the headlines correctly he's now being symbolically sacrificed by the State. Has he had to profess his love for Big O yet?

9/16/2009 10:52:00 AM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

Godwin's Law has a new companion:
Feldman's Law

"I want a law named after me -- Feldman's Law -- and I want it invoked whenever that horrible anti-Semite, dreadful human being and unspeakably incompetent President, Jimmy Carter, is hauled out to defend or accuse someone. It would hold that as the Democrat's position grows increasingly weak, the probability of a charge of racism increases, and when the position is on its last mortal legs, that old self righteous misanthrope, Jimmy Carter,will be hauled out of his lonely cellar to pronounce it so."

Hee Hee

9/16/2009 12:10:00 PM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

I heard The Majah call Carter "The National Hemorrhoid".
Perfect.

9/16/2009 12:45:00 PM  
Blogger Anna said...

"'...I can discover no reason why the kind of society which seems to me desirable should offer greater advantages to me than to the great majority of the people in my country.'"

Just a theory --

The trade off in their minds is that they will be convicted of the truth - that the universe is not merely made of matter. Their loss is perceived as your gain. So they hate the messenger. That kind of system is premised on spiritual reality being what it is and to accept it is to support what they want to deny.

Also, an irony is that Hayek IS voting for the one that is best for the greater good, by focusing on the individual. They focus on the collective in the (LOUD) name of what's best for the common good, and it's not good for persons, individuals. That's their big mantra and they reject it.

9/16/2009 01:15:00 PM  
Blogger Anna said...

That is all pretty obvious but the main point was about why they doubt the motives of classical liberals.

9/16/2009 01:19:00 PM  
Blogger Anna said...

Plus thugs won't get promoted in a right-side-up society. Actual performance and virtue would rise up. Not to mention all the inconveniences like giving birth to children that are conceived and such things like that.

9/16/2009 01:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Joseph said...

Anna,
I'm pretty sure I am in love with you. Your ideas must go over big in Portland!

Wv: nousness

9/16/2009 01:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Antony said...

Joseph,

And she bears a slight resemblance to a young Jodie Foster which ain't bad.

9/16/2009 02:25:00 PM  
Blogger Anna said...

Joseph -

That funny... Yep, I'm surrounded by a lot of friends who are made of two things - one, their real personalities which I thoroughly enjoy and two, these strange philosophies that seemed to have stitched onto their skins. But yeah, many friends I grew up with and even went to church youth group with spout the lefty get-up. It seems humorous at the moment that this article:

http://www.au.af.mil/info-ops/iosphere/iosphere_summer06_kilcullen.pdf

...engaged me, on impulse not thought-out, after seeing David Kilcullen on Charlie Rose in the spring of '07, with regards to dealing with the seeming local tidal wave of the leftist bandwagon. You wouldn't BELIEVE (or maybe you would) some of the stuff that goes on - there is a band called The Welfare State for instance. The main undergrowth of the city is a broader section of society, but a lot of newer imports along with many converted NW natives in the last five years or decade have been in step to the Piper's mountain tune.

9/16/2009 02:28:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Anna, that's a fascinating article. Thanks! Also, you have my sympathies there in Portland. Talk about deep cover ;)

9/16/2009 03:47:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

"I am sure that Omamacare will include mandated mental health coverage. Therefore, it is like free money for me. My pool of potential victims will increase exponentially."

I don't know, Bob. It's probably my headcold meds, but this doesn't compute to me. Placing aside even that therapy is already free here.. For that I will always be greatfull.

I don't see how Obiecare will be better for anyone in the medical field collectively or individually nor is there anything wrong with the latter even if that was why you were against it.

9/16/2009 04:07:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

But with regard to my first comment, I probably could use a little more detail to set me straight.
If you don't mind..

9/16/2009 04:09:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Right now, a lot of people don't have coverage for psychotherapy, but I'm guessing that the APA will pressure the Dems to give them a place at the trough.

It's sort of how any idiot can put up a shingle and prepare taxes every spring, since everyone has to file taxes. Likewise, once everyone is entitled to free therapy, getting patients will be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.

9/16/2009 04:31:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Thanks, Bob. My impression, obviously mostly as an observer, was that it was the stigma that kept many people from seeking psychiatric care more than an inability to pay out of pocket or by coverage. In other words, if it were now free would more of these people find the thought of themselves needing it more acceptable to them?

9/16/2009 04:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a socialist, I must say that Carter was right about many things. Also, eat the rich.

9/16/2009 05:01:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

And what would those things be?

9/16/2009 05:10:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

aninnymouse said "As a socialist, I must say that Carter was right about many things..."

rrrrrrRALLLPHH!!!.

Sorry, I wouldn't have eaten today if I'd known someone would say that.

But then as a socialist, you are at least right for each other.

9/16/2009 05:13:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Ow. That background almost gave me a seizure.

9/16/2009 05:14:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

While I’m waiting, I couldn’t make it all the way through that speech he gave in 77. I already lived through the 70’s once, thanks. Apparently he was quite wrong about needing another Texas every year or Alaska every 6 months just to stay even.

9/16/2009 05:16:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Ricky, re. therapy, I may completely wrong but my impression has been that the people who probably most need it tend to feel stigmatized. But if it's being offered on someone else's dime, you'll probably see an influx of the same types of folks who go to the emergency room for a pregnancy test every few weeks, knowing they don't have to pay for it.

Of course, I may be talking out of the wrong orifice on that one, so take it for what it's worth.

9/16/2009 05:21:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Julie, he’s either putting us on, or you’re allergic to peanuts. Or both.

9/16/2009 05:21:00 PM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

As a socialist, it makes perfect sense you'd be attracted to an abject failure.

Viva la Jimmah

9/16/2009 05:23:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

“But if it's being offered on someone else's dime, you'll probably see an influx of the same types of folks who go to the emergency room for a pregnancy test every few weeks, knowing they don't have to pay for it.”

Yes. So I think that means more patients/psychotherapists. It may be free, but only so much free to go around. As you say, not my area either.

9/16/2009 05:34:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

OT, but LGF is clean gone from that Politics of Destruction blog aggregator...replaced by biggovernment.com, I do believe...

9/16/2009 05:34:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

While we’re waiting for Anon’s list, here’s another thing I’d like explained to me, since Mr Cah-teir brings it up. And we’re still bringing it up 32 years later. Conservation. Tell me, what difference does it make if we run out of oil 30 years from now or 32 years from now? Pick a number.

9/16/2009 05:38:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Search of the day:

bat shark repellent spray

9/16/2009 06:29:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

A relevant 'joke' my Brother just sent me:

THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER

This one is a little different...
Two Different Versions! ................. Two Different Morals!

OLD VERSION: The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!


MODERN VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.'

Acorn stages a demonstration in front of the ant 's house where the news stations film the group singing, 'We shall overcome.' Rev. Jeremiah Wright then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ants food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.


MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2010.

9/16/2009 06:30:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

The most good any speech of jimmah carters was this scene from Kurt Russell's movie "Used Cars", about to pirate an 'ad' during his speech, which he's desperate for his girl not to see.

Uhm... you'll have to pardon a little bit of leftist vocabulary.

9/16/2009 06:43:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Wow. "Bat shark repellent spray" takes me back. Living room floor, rabbit ears, tv that required a solid thwack to stop the rolling picture, giggling hysterically at the sheer ludicrosity...

I loved that scene :)

9/16/2009 07:03:00 PM  
Blogger mushroom said...

Julie said: Bullshit.

I love Julie, I just think she should come out of her shell and be a little more blunt and forceful.

As I think I've said before, if I had read Hayek in my sadly misspent youth, I might have become an economist myself. The mathematical side of economics is voodoo at best, but the theory side is true philosophy. I might be working on the Tao of M1 today instead of the Tao of Disco.

9/16/2009 07:17:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Very true about the philosophical side -- it's beautiful. I think I first realized the power of it in reading Helmut Schoeck's classic Envy.

9/16/2009 07:25:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Mushroom said "... if I had read Hayek in my sadly misspent youth, I might have become an economist myself. The mathematical side of economics is voodoo at best, but the theory side is true philosophy. "

I agree too... Philosophy, and it's kit's Ethics, Law, Economics... they are all Justice, Beauty and Truth viewed through different angles of the One's prism.

Dazzling... not dismal at all.

wv:nonytea
eh... I'm all for tea parties, but I think I'll pass on anony tea

9/16/2009 08:09:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Mushroom - I know, I'm far too meek and timid. One of these days, I'll grow a backbone ;)

9/16/2009 08:21:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

Woo-hoo! Under Obiecare...
I'm gonna be a therapist,
I'm gonna be a therapist.
And my first patient...
Timmah...
er Jimmah!

Cain't wait y'all!

9/16/2009 09:16:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

What's great about our bi-racial POTUS is that you can be a racist towards him whether you're black or white!

9/16/2009 09:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, Bob, leave the politics behind. As long as there is a (willing) mate in the bed, food in the fridge, and money in the wallet, why get your chones in a knot about leftists? It makes no sense.

Move on to spiritual things. Talk about how to feel greater peace of mind. Talk about how to defeat negative emotions. Talk about how to love more and better.

These things I want to know. I have heard enough of the leftists; I am jaded of it badly.

Your faithful reader.

9/16/2009 10:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Arise, you prisoners of starvation!
Arise, you wretched of the earth!
For justice thunders condemnation:
A better world's in birth!
No more tradition's chains shall bind us,
Arise you slaves, no more in thrall!
The earth shall rise on new foundations:
We have been nought, we shall be all!
'Tis the final conflict,
Let each stand in his place.
The international proletariat
Shall be the human race!

9/16/2009 10:33:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Bob, when I used the word stigma last night, pride may have been a better word. As in, the last person to accept or even realize they need help may be the one who might really benefit from it. Maybe even like a catch-22. Someone close to me, as only one example I admit, has suffered more, I believe, by thinking he “will just tough it out”. This seems to be his personal philosophy toward this. As if this kind of care is beneath him. Obviously, some is due to ignorance. But I’m not certain entirely.

9/17/2009 05:21:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

This question may be too difficult to answer in a comment window. You’ve mentioned a few times about the requirement for you as a student to undergo therapy. Is this done only so that you will know what it is like to be the patient and to “experience” therapy from the other side vs. just hearing and reading “about it”? I get the impression there are more reasons for it than those (if those are even correct RE the purpose of it).

9/17/2009 05:38:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Yes, that's one reason, but also because psychoanalytic concepts are generally not (k) but (n), so that the only way to understand them is to experience them.

Also, in order to conduct psychoanalytic therapy, it is critical not to confuse the patient's material with one's own. In other words, since the analyst's own unconscious is a critical source of information, it must be as free of "noise" as possible. As far as I know, personal therapy is only required for psychoanalytic training.

9/17/2009 06:08:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Just to clarify, in modern psychoanalysis, one of the most important sources of information is called "counter-transference," which is the analyst's response to the patient's behavior and verbalizations, both conscious and unconscious. In other words, vibes are important! One of the purposes of personal therapy is to cleanse and calibrate one's vibe-detecting instrument, so that it becomes a kind of refined intuition.

9/17/2009 06:17:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

As Bion said, one must train oneself to listen to oneself listening to the patient....

9/17/2009 06:18:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Thanks Bob. That makes perfect sense.
I hope I didn't mess up your freshly-baked post too much.

wv: bioni (scout's honor)

9/17/2009 06:21:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Which is why, for example, being bored in the presence of a patient can be a critical form of counter-transference. Rather than being meaningless, it may very well be an unconscious communication of the patient's psychic deadness. Next time you're in the presence of a boring person, go within and try to understand what it must be like to be that person. It's one way to make boring people a little more interesting.

9/17/2009 06:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Boring Person said...

That's exactly what I do when I'm alone!

9/17/2009 06:36:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

An OT diversion from boring guys, I just heard an annecdote that's had me chuckling all morning (eh, boring is as boring does) about a fellow named George Stigler (I don't know much about him, but was apparently one of Thomas Sowell's favorite Prof.'s).

While on a panel discussion about economics, one leftie pinhead during his preceding turn said "I know just what Prof. Stigler will say, and it is all wrong! Stigler got up on his turn and said "Two plus two equals four." went back to his chair and sat back down.

I really gotta find out more about this guy!

9/17/2009 07:19:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home